Italian court convicts 7 for no quake warning

An Italian court convicted seven scientists and experts of manslaughter on Monday for failing to adequately warn citizens before an earthquake
struck central Italy in 2009, killing more than 300 people. Read more:
www.myfoxdc.com...

Didn't know where to put this article. I put it here since it deals with earthquake prediction. What I find interesting is that the courts seem to
have sided with the argument that predicting earthquakes is a science and that it irresponsible to not warn people of imminent earthquakes.

The defendants were accused in the indictment of giving `'inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" about whether small tremors felt by
L'Aquila residents in the weeks and months before the April 6, 2009, quake should have constituted grounds for a quake warning. Read more:
www.myfoxdc.com...

Well that hardly seems fair... Lets say, for the sake of argument, the scientists knew with 100% certainty that there was going to be a massive
earthquake. Is it their legal responsibility to tell everyone?

And obviously they didn't have 100% certainty because that's impossible. ... Or is it?

Wow, this is just stupid. Manslaughter for not predicting an earthquake. Gotta wonder about these Italians. I wouldn't want to be that cruise ship
Captain but he will probably get off. Next they will be charging the weatherman for not getting the weather right. Utter crap.

Just read this article and the implications are not good for the scientific community. Basing the rationale that the scientist failed to "warn" the
area of a larger quake, based on the small swarm of negligible to minor quakes in the region is dubious and akin to a 'witch-hunt'.

It begs the question though, if the scientist warned them of an impending large quake and caused hysteria or mass evacuations but failed to come
through on their predictions, would the court have convicted them of disseminating false data or causing havoc?

Wow, this has to be the craziest reason to convict anyone, because they didn't predict the earthquake. Even with the advance equipment they have to
work with they can't predict an earthquake and it's magnitude with absolute accuracy. Sometimes scientists are caught between damn if they do damn if
they don't kind of situations and this is one of them. Can you imagine how swamped governmental offices will be in the future with scientists
reporting all kinds of early warning predictions (many wild speculations) out of fear of going to prison?

It begs the question though, if the scientist warned them of an impending large quake and caused hysteria or mass evacuations but failed to come
through on their predictions, would the court have convicted them of disseminating false data or causing havoc?

Exactly, that's the damn if they do damn if they don't situation their legal body is placing scientists. This is madness to place blame on imperfect
beings because they didn't do something requiring perfection.

After a series of tremors in late March, the committee met, after which a government official informed the press that “the scientific community
tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy,”

I would struggle to believe that any scientists would claim that there is "no danger", and apparently they didn't.

According to reporting in Scientific American’s sister publication Nature, minutes of the meeting show that the researchers were in fact much
more circumspect, saying things such as “a major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out” and “because L’Aquila is in a
high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake.”

If the scientists had stated something like “a major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out”, then I don't think they should
be charged with giving false or misleading information unless the court can prove that every minor earthquake swarm warrants a severe earthquake
warning or that there is a significant probability that one will occur. But I think they would really struggle to prove that.

Personally, I think this case is ridiculous, and I really hope that the appeal process throws out the sentences laid on these scientists.

After a series of tremors in late March, the committee met, after which a government official informed the press that “the scientific community
tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy,”

So because a scientist, by all means of scientific data, has said there will be no meteor strike...yet one does strike....is that scientist culpable?

I would struggle to believe that any scientists would claim that there is "no danger", and apparently they didn't.

Name me a scientist; or anyone else; who can accurately predict earthquakes. Further, show me one who can predict earthquakes that can devastate.

According to reporting in Scientific American’s sister publication Nature, minutes of the meeting show that the researchers were in fact much
more circumspect, saying things such as “a major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out” and “because L’Aquila is in a
high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake.”

So it cannot be ruled out,,,,,so they are guilty of what? At least for the most part the system should have to overcome the evidence that they were
in fact guilty of not predicting an event that has been proven to not be predictable as of current technology....

Personally, I think this case is ridiculous, and I really hope that the appeal process throws out the sentences laid on these scientists.

Personally you attempted to make the case otherwise. What were the scientist to do? Answer my previous question that begs to be
answered....

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
So because a scientist, by all means of scientific data, has said there will be no meteor strike...yet one does strike....is that scientist culpable?

Culpable of what? They may be culpable of bad science, as I don't think any scientist would actually state that there will be no meteor
strike, as there is always a chance. They could of course, attribute a very, very low probability, but regardless, I don't think they should be held
to blame if there is a meteor strike.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Name me a scientist; or anyone else; who can accurately predict earthquakes. Further, show me one who can predict earthquakes that can devastate.

I'm confused here. I have not stated anywhere that I think this, and I certainly don't think there is anyone who can accurately predict a
devastating earthquake with any real certainty.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
At least for the most part the system should have to overcome the evidence that they were in fact guilty of not predicting an event that has been
proven to not be predictable as of current technology....

I agree. That is what I meant when I said "I don't think they should be charged with giving false or misleading information unless the court can
prove that every minor earthquake swarm warrants a severe earthquake warning or that there is a significant probability that one will occur." I then
stated that I seriously doubt that they could do this.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Personally, I think this case is ridiculous, and I really hope that the appeal process throws out the sentences laid on these scientists.

Personally you attempted to make the case otherwise. What were the scientist to do? Answer my previous question that begs to be answered...

I honestly have no idea how it could be interpreted that I made a case otherwise. I showed that the scientists did not actually say that there was
"no risk", therefore I don't think they can be charged with anything unless the courts can prove that every minor quake swarm warrants a warning of
a serious quake, which I seriously doubt they could.

It appears that the scientists thought there was low risk of a large quake, which could be a reasonable assessment based on the evidence at hand and
our current understanding of earthquakes. Therefore, I don't think they are at fault. I'm pretty sure I am in complete agreement with what you
said, so I apologise if there was any confusion.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.